"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary, which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.)

But then on page 186 I find:

"Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad."

OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean.

But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?)

And when Copernicus proposed his model, what happened?

"In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals." -- Wikipedia

Many people thought he was wrong, but I've seen no evidence that anyone thought he was "mad."



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights